Samuel Verschelde a écrit :
Le jeudi 9 juin 2011 11:05:16, Colin Guthrie a écrit :
> 'Twas brillig, and Ahmad Samir at 08/06/11 22:48 did gyre and gimble:
> > On 8 June 2011 23:38, Stew Benedict <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> If you're going to rebuild *after* QA, you've just invalidated your QA.
> >> (yeah, I know it *should* be the same, but stuff happens)
> >
> > You're right (even if that's never happened for 3-4 years in mdv,
> > since sec team rebuilt the packages when pushing to */updates IIRC).
>
> Personally, and this might just be me, I always submit my packages to
> *testing with a subrel of 0.1, 0.2 0.3 etc etc. Users then test my
> various iterations. When I'm happy and when it's ready to pass to QA, I
> set the subrel to 1. This way the final version that should hit updates
> is nice and neat.
>
> In an ideal world, QA would validate it for me then change the subrel
> for me. That process would require a rebuild.
>
> I'm not sure what others feel about this? It's not impossible to just do
> this as a matter of course as part of the process we go through and
> increment subrel to a round number before handing over to QA... although
> maybe I'm just a bit too anal about neat version numbers :p
Neat version numbers are great, so I like your way of doing updates :)
Samuel
I like this approach too. Very nice :)
Especially the idea of incrementing subrel to a round number before handing to
QA.
And if QA finds a problem, we could revert to the decimal increment sequence until fixed, before
incrementing to a round number for QA again.
(The same round number, or would it be better to use the next ?)
--
André
